California Supreme Court Holds Public Agencies May Be Held Liable for Violating the CPRA Depending on How They Process Such Requests, Even If No Disclosures are Required (City of Gilroy v. Law Foundation of Silicon Valley)

01.22.2026

On January 15, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in City of Gilroy v. Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, clarifying the scope of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). The decision provides that: (1) the CPRA allows for declaratory relief to guide an agency’s future conduct “even in some circumstances when it is uncontested that there are no existing nonexempt records to disclose”; and (2) the CPRA is not a records retention statute and does not impose an independent legal obligation to retain or preserve records.

In 2018 and 2019, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley (“Law Foundation”) requested access to Gilroy Police Department’s (“GPD”) body-worn camera recordings related to specific activities from the City of Gilroy (“City”). The City denied the request, asserting that the recordings were exempt from disclosure under the CPRA.

Due to the Law Foundation’s intent to pursue litigation, the GPD placed a litigation hold on the body-worn camera records to preserve them beyond the City’s one-year retention period. All body-worn camera footage recorded prior to early 2018, however, had already been destroyed in accordance with the City’s one-year retention policy for such records.

The trial court did not find any CPRA violations related to the 2019 request. However, the court granted partial declaratory relief relative to the 2018 CPRA request on the grounds that the agency performed an inadequate search, it failed to review records before invoking an exemption, and  its response (sent after 33 days) was untimely and boilerplate. In addition, the court held that the CPRA does not contain a retention requirement.

Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the City that declaratory relief was not available in such a case, noting that the CPRA “provides no … remedy … that may be utilized for any purpose other than to determine whether a particular record or class of records must be disclosed.”  (Quoting County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 119, 127.) The Court of Appeal rejected the Law Foundation’s arguments that public agencies have a duty under the CPRA to preserve and retain public records. 

The California Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s holding that the CPRA does not mandate a retention period for records. The Court emphasized that no such preservation obligation appears in the text of the CPRA, that the CPRA’s legislative history reflects that the Legislature expressly stated that the CPRA does not affect other records retention/destruction laws, and that the existence of record-retention periods in other statutes further supports the conclusion that the Legislature deliberately declined to include a preservation mandate in the CPRA.

As to the issue of declaratory relief, the Court held that “the CPRA authorizes declaratory relief that a public agency has violated its provisions even in some circumstances when it is uncontested that there are no existing nonexempt records to disclose.”  The California Supreme Court looked at federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) litigation, such as FOIA “pattern or practice” claims, noting that federal courts have granted similar relief.  The Court also noted that in Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1428, declaratory relief was granted to a CPRA requester because the city “gave up too soon [in its search for records] and did not press the matter sufficiently, to a reasonable extent, at a time when [the records sought]…still existed.”

As a result of this decision, California public agencies should recognize that CPRA enforcement is not limited to forcing disclosure of particular documents. Agencies may face declaratory relief actions about how they responded to CPRA requests, potentially affecting future CPRA practices.  The California Supreme Court found the public agency’s arguments that such declaratory relief would threaten a tidal wave of CPRA litigation for purposes of recovering attorney’s fees unpersuasive. The Court noted it was not deciding whether CPRA attorney’s fees will be available in future cases alleging merely “technical” violations of the CPRA, and also noted that trial courts are required to limit CPRA attorney fee awards to prevailing requesters to reasonable attorney’s fees.

This means that a court could clarify whether certain practices (i.e., how requests are handled, timing, adequacy of responses, etc.) comply with the CPRA and order that the respondent public agency make changes to its CPRA practices going forward.  This expands the potential remedies available to requesters and increases the risks for agencies whose CPRA practices are not well-refined or not compliant with CPRA obligations.  The City of Gilroy decision also highlights the importance for agencies to conduct reasonable searches for responsive records within the CPRA statutory period (10 days, or up to 24 days if a basis for extension of that period exists) and, based on the results of such searches, respond specifically to a CPRA requester’s request.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the City of Gilroy v. Law Foundation of Silicon Valley decision or other CPRA matters, please contact the authors of this Alert or your usual AALRR counsel.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

©2026 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo